Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Progressives, Fascism, and the Will to Power

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So-called progressives are feeling pretty cocky nowadays, which is not surprising after they achieved a decisive victory on one of their key policy goals when the United States Supreme Court mandated that every state must adjust its laws to pretend that people of the same sex can marry one another.  Of course, it is the case and will always be the case that a man cannot marry another man any more than he can marry his left shoe.  Marriage is not an infinitely malleable concept; it has an irreducible essence, and that essence is defined by the mutually complementary design of male and female bodies.  Now the Supreme Court tells us we must, insofar as our civil laws are concerned, pretend that relationships that do not partake of that essence in fact do.  Far from tainting the victory, however, the in-the-teeth-of-objective-reality quality of it all serves to emphasize the vast scope of the progressives’ triumph.  They have forced every state in the union to pretend to deny reality itself.  That is an impressive political victory.

Understandably, many progressives must feel their power is ascendant and will remain so, and some are succumbing to the temptation of ascendancy – the temptation to speak and act as if one’s political opponents are powerless and their concerns are therefore irrelevant and need not be acknowledged, far less taken seriously.  Progressives are beginning to drop all pretense that to them the ideals of Enlightenment liberalism such as the right to free speech and freedom of conscious were ever anything but useful tools for accomplishing their goals when classical liberals (who, ironically, are called “conservatives” in the United States) were ascendant.  They have played according to the formula Frank Herbert described in Children of Dune:

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.

The progressive call for “tolerance” for the “other” we heard for so many years was their way of asking for freedom according to the principles of classical liberals.  But now that progressives are politically ascendant, they are no longer calling for tolerance for the other.  Instead they are determined to quash all dissent and destroy those who refuse to conform, because progressives are fascists at bottom, and arraying the coercive force of government against their political opponents to enforce conformity is according to their fascist principles.  When they were weak, “tolerance and diversity!”  Now that they are strong, “Conform or be crushed under the heel of government.”  See here, here and here as merely the latest examples.

What does this have to do with origins?  Everything of course.  Classical liberalism was based on the premises and conclusions of natural law philosophy, as perhaps most famously articulated in the United States’ Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It should be obvious that the superstructure of natural law rested on a theistic, specifically a Christian, foundation.  [Yes, a handful of the founders were Deists; the overwhelming majority of them were orthodox Christians.]  Classical liberals believed in God; they believed in a transcendent morality instituted by God; they believed that rights are not given by men to other men, but each man, as an image bearer of God, is endowed with inalienable rights by God.

These ideas have logical consequences.  Among these consequences are the belief that every human being has inherent dignity as an image bearer of God; that all persons have equal moral standing and thus a right to the twin freedoms of expression and conscience.  On the other side of the ledger, classical liberals had a keen sense of the doctrine of original sin, the fallenness of man, and his propensity for error, all of which led them to tolerate divergent political views and place their trust in the marketplace of ideas instead of a perpetual official political orthodoxy.

Progressives, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly secular and materialist in their outlook.  These ideas also have consequences, including (1) God does not exist; (2) good and evil do not exist as objective transcendent ontological categories; (3) God, who does not exist, cannot endow men with inalienable rights; and (4) men are not image bearers of a non-existent God; they are jumped up hairless apes with delusions of superiority over other animals.

If there is no good and evil and no God-endowed rights, by what standard does the progressive define the eponymous “progress” they claim to want to achieve?  Certainly there is no transcendent standard.  “We have to give up on the idea that there are unconditional, transcultural moral obligations, obligations rooted in an unchanging, ahistorical human nature,” says progressive hero Richard Rorty.

What then?  The answer is that progressives want what that want.  Theirs is a political philosophy bound by nothing and defined by their unbounded will to power.  Of course, none of this is new.  In Book X of The Laws Plato describes them:

In the first place, my dear friend, these people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them.

Might makes right.  Progressives want what they want, and they will crush those who oppose their will to power.  And it is not enough to achieve their policy objectives.  Dissent is not allowed.  Progressive Tanya Cohen writes:

it’s just common sense that freedom of speech doesn’t give anyone the right to offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate, vilify, incite hatred or violence, be impolite or uncivil, disrespect, oppose human rights, spread lies or misinformation, argue against the common good, or promote ideas which have no place in society.

And who decides what is the “common good” and “ideas that have no place in society”?  Why Tanya Cohen and her friends of course.

Countless times on these pages Progressives have argued that good and evil do not exist as objective categories.  Instead, they insist that good is defined by the consensus of a society.  Yet even this limit is a dodge.  Every time the people have voted on the “right” to same-sex marriage they have rejected it by fairly wide margins.  It is not the law because there is a societal consensus that it is right.  It is the law because five members of a nine-member committee of lawyers decided they have the power to impose it on the rest of us and by God they are going to use that power.  This is about as anti-democratic as it is possible to be.  Yet progressives celebrate the decision.  Why?  Not because the outcome is “legitimate” even by their own standards of legitimacy (i.e., societal consensus), but because that is what they want, and they don’t care how they get what they want so long as they get it.

What is to be done?  I am not sure.  It seems to me that the clash of worldviews has reached a point where further attempts to reason with one another may be useless.  The two camps no longer speak or even understand the other camp’s moral language.  How can I reason with someone who thinks it is morally acceptable violently to dismember a baby and sell her body parts to the highest bidder?  If that is not self-evidently monstrous and evil, what can I say that would make its monstrousness and evilness apparent?  I have no idea.

When Justice Kennedy says that the conception of marriage that was accepted by everyone everywhere in the history of the world until ten minutes ago is based on nothing but bigotry and prejudice, what can be said to dissuade him from such an absurd idea?  Again, I have no idea.

I do have an idea, however, that perhaps it is time to read more deeply into the Declaration:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Comments
STAND, a group of black ministers headed by Bishop E.W. Jackson, has sent a lettter to the Smithsonian Institution demanding that a bust of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, be removed from an exhibit. It reads, in part:
We are writing to ask that Margaret Sanger’s likeness be removed from all National Portrait Gallery exhibits. Her bust should not be part of the Gallery’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit, which honors "great achievements...striking down long-standing segregationist practices and discrimination in American society.” Ms. Sanger may have been a lot of things, but a “champion of justice” she definitely was not. Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;" speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well- documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering! Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion. Nevertheless, a prestigious institution like the National Portrait Gallery should have higher standards and subject its honorees to higher scrutiny.
HT: American ThinkerHeartlander
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: The choice of the least of evils is an evil and is no good standard Thought the lesson of history was that unbending ideology was the danger.Zachriel
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Harry, awful. Their blood cries up from the ground against our civilisation. KFkairosfocus
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Zachriel, one of the evils of so-called values clarification is to try to teach "values" by trying to create dilemmas and contradictions. The choice of the least of evils is an evil and is no good standard of the value of any human being from conception to natural death; the true lesson is that in some cases you can only do what you can and cry out to God for mercy. A sound approach to virtue as with any other serious subject starts from the simple and straightforward ABCs then builds up knowledge and experience to handle difficult cases. That professional educators tolerate an approach that creates confusion and loss of insight in this field strongly shows the breakdown of moral fabric in our civilisation, tied to the rise of amoral worldviews dressed up in lab coats. Worldviews that undermine even the self aware, responsibly free rational person, and if unchecked lead to predictably destructive marches of folly. KFkairosfocus
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Hello kairosfocus, Yes, it is important to point out that Paul was forgiven of blood-guilt. He went on to become the Apostle of the gentiles, and one who was so completely forgiven and so filled with the love of Christ that he was able to proclaim "It is not I who live but Christ Who lives in me." And yes, the pictures of a little hand next to a coin are shocking. Unfortunately, I have seen a photograph of a large trash can filled with dead babies larger than many newborns I have held in my arms. I don't know if it has been purged from the net or not. ... I checked and didn't find the famous photograph of one day's worth of late abortions at a teaching hospital. That photograph was a bombshell that became a significant factor in launching the Pro-Life movement in the U.S.harry
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: there is just One who has the pay-grade to put a value-tag on a human being from conception to natural death. So you would save the vat of blastocysts before the child.Zachriel
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Zachriel, there is just One who has the pay-grade to put a value-tag on a human being from conception to natural death. And the value he assigns is patently transfinite: what is a man profited if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul? The answer almost does not need to be said, but for those who need it: the net loss is still infinite. A word to the wise. KF PS: And an appropriate post number for such a comment.kairosfocus
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Harry, sobering words, and I understand (I have not the heart or appetite to look but someone close to me described a little hand from a victim next to a coin) the images are shocking. I fear, blood-guilt blinds eyes, en-darkens hearts and benumbs consciences. But the apostle Paul himself is proof of the forgiveness of even blood-guilt. KFkairosfocus
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
To any who have been following this discussion: It is always a good thing to interject a little reality into the process of forming one's opinion. In order to accomplish that, please consider using Google images to search for "aborted babies." You will find that the slow Nazification process that has gone on for so long in our country has reached the point where what is obviously the results of the brutal murder of innocent children is shamelessly available for all to see. If you have not been Nazified yet, you will be very disturbed at what you see. Thank God for that. If you find yourself thinking "so what?" as you look at those photographs, pray to God about that. He can heal even Nazification. One final thought: If you have been involved in some way with abortion, know that God is anxious to forgive you and heal you. He loves you. He understands. Consider a young woman who was brought up to trust her doctor as one who is so honorable that if necessary, she can be disrobed in his presence if that is required for him to attend to her medical needs. She was brought up to be a good American and honor and obey the decisions of the Supreme Court. She was taught that she had civic responsibilities and that that required staying up on current events, and that she could find out what she needed to know in order to make informed decisions from the news media. Then she finds herself in an unexpected and unplanned situation: she is pregnant. What should she do about that? Well, she thinks she should trust all the institutions she has been taught to trust. The Supreme Court said obtaining an abortion was her constitutional right. The honorable doctors are more than happy to perform an abortion. The news media have been telling her that it is only a handful of extremist, religious wackos who object to abortion. It should surprise no one if she chooses abortion, since it is just the removal of a "mass of tissue." She was lied to. She is a victim, too, in the truest sense of the word. God understands. God forgives. Forgive yourself. And become part of the resistance to this holocaust of innocent human life.harry
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Zachriel: we assume that means you think an abortion should be criminal for a woman carrying a dying fetus, that you would force the woman to continue the pregnancy until either she or the fetus died. harry: You have already demonstrated that your assumptions are preposterous ... Okay, then. You don't think it should be criminal for a woman to have an abortion to end a pregnancy when the fetus is dying.Zachriel
August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
we assume ...
You have already demonstrated that your assumptions are preposterous and evil. Evil is always shown to be irrational in the final analysis, so it is no surprise that your assumptions are preposterous. Continue vomiting forth your evil absurdities. The more you do, the more you display the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of your position. You might also want to look for a good exorcist.harry
August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
harry: All your arguments are desperate attempts to avoid the glaring fact that the mass murder of innocent human beings by the millions is what must be addressed. Few accord the same moral value to a blastocyst, as to a late-term fetus or an infant. Few would shut down fertility clinics because they endanger fertilized eggs. Most people understand that there are shades of gray, and that there is a tradeoff between the value they place on the autonomy and safety of women and the value they place on the developing fetus.Zachriel
August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
harry: Physicians should do all they can to save both mother and child without committing murder in the process. As you didn't answer directly, we assume that means you think an abortion should be criminal for a woman carrying a dying fetus, that you would force the woman to continue the pregnancy until either she or the fetus died. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22204377 As we said, one can't argue fundamental values, but one can show the implications of a rigid ideology. harry: I have the opinion that the earth is round and not flat. There's a difference between an opinion about an empirical fact, which is subject to objective verification, and an opinion of value you place of something or someone, which can be shared, but is not something that can be objectively verified.Zachriel
August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
You didn't respond to the question. Would you make exceptions for a non-viable fetus? Or would you force the mother to continue to carry the fetus until one or the both of them were dead?
I did respond. Let me put it another way: Physicians should do all they can to save both mother and child without committing murder in the process.
You’re simply stating opinions
I have the opinion that the earth is round and not flat. I suspect we share that opinion. I also have the opinion that murder is wrong. We obviously don't share that opinion.
the Declaration of Geneva has been amended several times....
So what? You desperately avoid addressing the big picture, because the huge, glaring facts of the big picture are indefensible: Over a billion innocent human beings have been brutally murdered around the world. You realize this, which is why you must retreat into discussion of minutiae to distract everyone from the big picture. Your arguments are like opposing shutting down the Jew-gassing operations at Auschwitz by focusing attention on a sweet little old man who sweeps the offices of the Nazi officials running the place everyday and empties their trash cans. "Why do you want to leave that poor old guy unemployed?" completely avoids the big picture. All your arguments are desperate attempts to avoid the glaring fact that the mass murder of innocent human beings by the millions is what must be addressed.harry
August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
harry: Zachriel, Again: You're simply stating opinions; in this case, one of utmost respect for the unborn. But notice that it is not a prohibition against abortion in certain situations. In addition, the Declaration of Geneva has been amended several times. One can't argue values, but one can show the implications of an unbending ideology. You didn't respond to the question. Would you make exceptions for a non-viable fetus? Or would you force the mother to continue to carry the fetus until one or the both of them were dead?Zachriel
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
kairosfocus: This takes the cake: Carpathian: It is not atheists that are dangerous any more than it is theists that are dangerous. kairosfocus: I think the evidence of the past century shows the dangers of atheistical nihilists in power sufficiently for any reasonable person to think twice.
Neither atheists nor theists are the danger but rather politicians. They will cross the floor and switch to another political party, or another religion, or a different philosophical position, or a different economic model, etc. In short they will do anything to get and retain power. This includes lying to the people about why they do things. People tend to accept whatever their leaders tell them up to a point. That point was reached in the Soviet Union when the people simply said no. No gun battles, no rebels, no government crackdowns, simply a no. Every "atheist" evil-doer could have been stopped the same way. WWII could have been stopped if the religious that believed in the "right to life" had simply said no. Again, if you don't believe that possible, explain the fall of the Soviet Union.Carpathian
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
It’s like euthanasia. People are against it, but practice it regularly.
Yes euthanasia in America is the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about. Dr. Henry Friedlander, in his book, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution, makes clear just how dangerous our complacency in this regard really is.harry
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Zachriel, Again: In response to the Nazi assault on the Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Geneva, also known as the Geneva Code was enacted in Geneva Switzerland in 1948 by the World Medical Association. Its updated version of the medical oath taken by physicians to “First do no harm” states in part:
Now being admitted to the profession of medicine, I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity … I will practice medicine with conscience and dignity. The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration … I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its conception … Even under threat I will not use my knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
Before Roe and after California’s highly controversial “legalization” of abortion (that which is clearly contrary to the “laws of humanity” referred to by the Geneva Code one can only pretend is legal), pro-abortion Dr. Malcolm Watts wrote an editorial that appeared in the September, 1970 edition of California Medicine. His audience was not that of the local mass media in California — that audience consisted of many who could be easily propagandized. No, his audience was to consist of educated medical professionals who had taken some version of the “First, do no harm” medical oath and knew quite well the earth-shaking nature of the “legalization” of taking the life of the child in the womb. Dr. Watts was forced into intellectual honesty in his editorial entitled A new ethic for medicine and society. Here are some excerpts from his editorial. An intellectually honest defense of the indefensible is quite interesting:
THE TRADITIONAL Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy. The reverence for each and every human life has also been a keystone of Western medicine and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong and enhance every human life which comes under their surveillance. This traditional ethic is still clearly dominant, but there is much to suggest that it is being eroded at its core and may eventually even be abandoned. This of course will produce profound changes in Western medicine and in Western society. … What is not yet so clearly perceived is that in order to bring this about hard choices will have to be made with respect to what is to be preserved and strengthened and what is not, and that this will of necessity violate and ultimately destroy the traditional Western ethic with all that this portends. It will become necessary and acceptable to place relative rather than absolute values on such things as human lives, the use of scarce resources and the various elements which are to make up the quality of life or of living which is to be sought. This is quite distinctly at variance with the Judeo-Christian ethic and carries serious philosophical, social, economic and political implications for Western society and perhaps for world society. The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.
He goes on to assert that the “new ethic of relative rather than of absolute and equal values will ultimately prevail…” His “new ethic” isn’t new at all. It had been tried by the Nazis and was condemned by the whole world because it violated the “laws of humanity.” Physicians are to "preserve, protect, repair, prolong and enhance every human life which comes under their surveillance." It isn't possible to always save every human life that comes under the physician's surveillance. Physicians are only human. But, saving every human life is still the goal, and to deliberately kill an innocent child is never legitimate. As I explained before, procedures can be used, which are moral according to the principle of "double effect," that will have the intended consequence of saving the mother, but also have the unintended consequence of bringing about the demise of the child. Such procedures, of course, do not include any action the intent of which is to kill the child, and is considered to have failed if the child survives. That is where you go wrong, You want to use procedures the intent of which is to kill the child. You want to kill children.harry
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
harry: If the child is dying you still want to immediately take action and kill it yourself before it dies naturally? A dying fetus is very dangerous to the mother.
For Praveen Halappanavar the last two weeks have been, in his own understated words, difficult. Nearly every day, he sat at the back of Galway court house and listened to the details of his wife's last days, and her miscarriage of their 17-week-old female foetus, a much-longed for child. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22204377
Would you make exceptions for a non-viable fetus? Or would you force the mother to continue to carry the fetus until one or the both of them were dead?Zachriel
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
harry: A distinction was made about the morality of abortion before and after quickening. They didn’t know life began at conception. The fetus was alive in the biological sense, but whether it was ensouled as a human being was a separate matter. It was considered a personal concern of the woman until that point, and women could easily induce abortion through various common herbs. Even today, few accord the same moral value to a blastocyst in vitro, as to a late-term fetus or living baby. harry: Are there any restrictions at all on abortion you would favor? Sure. The current compromise seems about right. Elective abortions should not be available after viability, except in extreme circumstances. Keep in mind that abortion is an ancient practice, and criminalization will not stop women from getting abortions. It's like euthanasia. People are against it, but practice it regularly.Zachriel
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Zachriel
harry: So before quickening they assumed a human life was not being taken. Zachriel: Um, harry, before quickening, the fetus can be as large as 3-4 inches long ...
People used to think the fetus wasn't alive until quickening when the mother could feel it moving. They thought the body was then animated with life. A distinction was made about the morality of abortion before and after quickening. They didn't know life began at conception. You didn't answer my question. Are there any restrictions at all on abortion you would favor?harry
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Carpathian, I get the strong feeling that you are utterly unfamiliar with the central moral teaching of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, presented in the epochal Sermon on the Mount by its principal teacher. Accordingly, I draw your attention: _____________ >> Matthew 5-7English Standard Version (ESV) The Sermon on the Mount 5 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. The Beatitudes 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God. 10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Salt and Light 13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. Christ Came to Fulfill the Law 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Anger 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother[c] will be liable to judgment; whoever insults[d] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell[e] of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.[f] Lust 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. Divorce 31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Oaths 33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.[g] Retaliation 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Love Your Enemies 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[i] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Giving to the Needy 6 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. The Lord's Prayer 5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.[j] 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done,[k] on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread,[l] 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.[m] 14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Fasting 16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Lay Up Treasures in Heaven 19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust[n] destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.[o] Do Not Be Anxious 25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?[p] 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. 34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. Judging Others 7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. 6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. Ask, and It Will Be Given 7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! The Golden Rule 12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. 13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy[q] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. A Tree and Its Fruit 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. I Never Knew You 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Build Your House on the Rock 24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” The Authority of Jesus 28 And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, 29 for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. Footnotes: Matthew 5:9 Greek huioi; see Preface Matthew 5:16 Or house. 16Let your light so shine before others that Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts insert without cause Matthew 5:22 Greek says Raca to (a term of abuse) Matthew 5:22 Greek Gehenna; also verses 29, 30 Matthew 5:26 Greek kodrantes, Roman copper coin (Latin quadrans) worth about 1/64 of a denarius (which was a day's wage for a laborer) Matthew 5:37 Or the evil one Matthew 5:40 Greek chiton, a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin Matthew 5:47 Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”) refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to brothers or to brothers and sisters Matthew 6:9 Or Let your name be kept holy, or Let your name be treated with reverence Matthew 6:10 Or Let your kingdom come, let your will be done Matthew 6:11 Or our bread for tomorrow Matthew 6:13 Or the evil one; some manuscripts add For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen Matthew 6:19 Or worm; also verse 20 Matthew 6:24 Greek mammon, a Semitic word for money or possessions Matthew 6:27 Or a single cubit to his stature; a cubit was about 18 inches or 45 centimeters Matthew 7:13 Some manuscripts For the way is wide and easy>> _____________ I suggest a rethink, balanced by a more fair minded survey of the history of our civilisation. On that the counsel of the great -- and Jewish BTW -- scholar, Bernard Lewis, in his noted essay, The Roots of Muslim Rage, has some wise words:
. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
Food for thought. KFkairosfocus
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Carpathian: This takes the cake:
It is not atheists that are dangerous any more than it is theists that are dangerous.
I think the evidence of the past century shows the dangers of atheistical nihilists in power sufficiently for any reasonable person to think twice. And, Plato's warning 2350 years since takes on ever more force as one reflects on the history of the past 100 years:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.
Yes, extremism of any form is dangerous. That is what makes any ideology that undermines moral government dangerous. But that then instantly puts evolutionary materialism on the list. KFkairosfocus
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
harry: So before quickening they assumed a human life was not being taken. Um, harry, before quickening, the fetus can be as large as 3-4 inches long and look like this: http://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webmd/consumer_assets/site_images/articles/health_tools/fetal_development_slideshow/PRinc_photo_of_fetus_at_16_weeks.jpg harry: If the child is dying you still want to immediately take action and kill it yourself before it dies naturally? A dying fetus is very dangerous to the mother.Zachriel
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
Whenever the fetus is dying, then abortion is a reasonable option.
If the child is dying you still want to immediately take action and kill it yourself before it dies naturally? You just can't pass up the chance to kill an innocent human being, can you? Bloodlust. Normal people just have a D&C performed after a miscarriage if that is necessary to avoid any chance of peritonitis.
Abortion before quickening was not illegal under common law. Laws against early abortion came about during the 19th century, coincident with male domination of female reproductive medicine.
That is absurd. Before people knew that life began an conception, they assumed it began at quickening. So before quickening they assumed a human life was not being taken. Physicians of the 19th century knew life began at conception, and were not involved in a plot to establish "male domination of female reproductive medicine." Even if that were the case, do you think that somehow justifies murdering millions of children older and more viable than patients routinely cared for in modern newborn intensive car units? Is there any restriction at all on abortion that you would favor? Or are you out to kill as many children as you possibly can?harry
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
harry: The advances in modern medicine have made the case where a woman’s life is really threatened if she continues her pregnancy extremely rare. Whenever the fetus is dying, then abortion is a reasonable option. So you would allow abortion to save the life of the mother then? Otherwise, you would use the power of the government to force her to carry to the child to term? Abortion is an ancient practice, and easily done, so enforcement will necessarily be arbitrary, often only when the woman has already suffered severe health effects and has to seek help. Suppose you can lock them up in a nunnery. harry: Have you ever asked yourself why the life of the child in the womb had the protection of law before the egomaniacal, sociopathic buffoons that made up a majority of the Supreme Court in the Roe decision abruptly withdrew it? Abortion before quickening was not illegal under common law. Laws against early abortion came about during the 19th century, coincident with male domination of female reproductive medicine.Zachriel
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
harry:
The people had decided that all humanity had inalienable, God-given rights — a fact that is lost on atheists, which is what makes them so dangerous, as modern history demonstrates with its record of the mass murder that is always perpetrated on innocent humanity by regimes hostile to theism.
It is not atheists that are dangerous any more than it is theists that are dangerous. I could blame theists for the second world war since most leaders were religious. That would be very simplistic though and would serve no purpose except to try and make a certain group of people scapegoats in a much more complex issue. It is not religion or atheism that is dangerous but rather fundamentalism.Carpathian
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
Sometimes saving the mother will require an abortion, plain and simple.
Occasionally there are tragic situations where we can't save everybody that is endangered. To deal with those situations in a moral manner, we must do the best we can to save everyone we can. In the process of doing so, it remains evil to take actions the intent of which is to kill one of the people involved, actions that are considered to have failed if the intended victim survives. The advances in modern medicine have made the case where a woman's life is really threatened if she continues her pregnancy extremely rare. And in those cases all that can be done to save the life of both mother and child must be done. To use those rare situations as an excuse to continue with the brutal dismemberment of children by the millions reveals more than a refusal to admit to an objective morality; it reveals a real commitment to evil, or a bigotry so profound that it makes the most vile, most bigoted, racist, slaveholding plantation owners of the Old South look like saints. Have you ever asked yourself why the life of the child in the womb had the protection of law before the egomaniacal, sociopathic buffoons that made up a majority of the Supreme Court in the Roe decision abruptly withdrew it? Why was that the case? Why did Justice White, in his dissent, assert that
At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons - convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure. ... I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus ... As an exercise of raw judicial power ... its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review ... I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. ... This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.
Before government of the people, by the people and for the people was overthrown by Roe, the issue had been "left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs." They had decided that all humanity deserved the protection of law. It is no accident that the movement to update the laws of the states such that they would reflect the fact that taking the life of the child in the womb always had been and would remain intrinsically illegal, began in the period in which the abolition of slavery took place. The people had decided that all humanity had inalienable, God-given rights -- a fact that is lost on atheists, which is what makes them so dangerous, as modern history demonstrates with its record of the mass murder that is always perpetrated on innocent humanity by regimes hostile to theism.harry
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Have you researched deaths and harm due to birth control by way of comparison? Yes, many birth control methods can have side-effects, but often have positive impacts, as well. See Hannaford, Mortality among contraceptive pill users: cohort evidence from Royal College of General Practitioners’ Oral Contraception Study, BMJ 2010: "Oral contraception was not associated with an increased long term risk of death in this large UK cohort; indeed, a net benefit was apparent." Silver Asiatic: Other than that, from your view, it’s a perfectly good choice and not “nearly always a bad choice”. As there are nearly always better alternatives, that means it's "nearly always a bad choice;" however, sometimes it's the least bad choice.Zachriel
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Z
While safe, it’s not as safe as prevention.
When it's performed safely then, no problem, right? Have you researched deaths and harm due to birth control by way of comparison?
And for many women, such as those with health problems, it’s felt as the loss of a potential child.
The negative effect of abortion is that it might make some people feel bad. Other than that, from your view, it's a perfectly good choice and not "nearly always a bad choice".Silver Asiatic
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3 11

Leave a Reply